FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 19 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN CARLOS LOPEZ VELAZQUEZ, Nos. 16-70231 16-73145 Petitioner, Agency No. A077-147-541 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of Orders of the Immigration Judge and an Order of the Department of Homeland Security Submitted April 17, 2019** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, M. SMITH, Circuit Judge, and VRATIL,*** District Judge. In these consolidated petitions, Juan Carlos Lopez-Velazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. affirming an asylum officer’s negative reasonable fear determination, a Department of Homeland Security order reinstating his prior order of removal, and an IJ’s decision denying his motion to reopen sua sponte his reasonable fear review proceedings. Because the parties are familiar with the history of these cases, we need not recount it here. I A The IJ did not err in issuing a negative reasonable fear determination, as Lopez-Velazquez claims in petition no. 16-70231. Lopez-Velazquez’s claim that the IJ did not allow him to testify is belied by the record. Given the nature of expedited removal proceedings, Lopez-Velazquez’s argument that the IJ’s decision is so conclusory it lacks substantial evidence also lacks merit. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 813–14 (9th Cir. 2018) (“In expedited proceedings . . . IJs do not have the ability nor are they required to provide detailed decisions outlining all the claims [and evidence] raised by the alien.” ). Finally, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s negative fear determination. Lopez-Velazquez described the most serious incident where one of his cousins shot at his feet as just “kidding around.” He also testified that he had not seen any of 2 them since 2001, that none of them had attempted to contact him, and that he did not know whether they were even in Mexico. Moreover, Lopez-Velazquez told immigration authorities when returning to the United States that he did not fear persecution or torture in Mexico. In sum, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Lopez-Velazquez failed to establish a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. B We lack jurisdiction to review Lopez-Velazquez’s collateral attacks to his underlying removal order in petition no. 16-70231. Lopez-Velazquez challenges a 2000 final order of removal through a petition for review filed in 2016. His petition is untimely, because a petition for review must be filed no later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). “This time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling.” Ayala ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals